Text Size

-

+

reset

Schuck said that “judges like Scalia try” to put aside their own views, but that after years of studying the law and working as lawyers or professors, “when they come to the text, they have a set of ways of looking at the text, thinking about the text, that are personal.”

“Not necessarily in the sense that they want a particular case to come out one way rather than another, but there tend to be fairly predictable, regularized patterns of interpretations,” he said.

At a Monday evening event at the Dallas-based Southern Methodist University, Scalia drew attention once again when he said that the Constitution “is not a living document. It is dead, dead, dead” - a description he has used repeatedly over the years.

And as part of a broader discussion about separating personal beliefs from legal rulings, the Reagan appointee also said that the “judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” according to a report from the Dallas Morning News.

“Most of the time — think of his health care decision last year — overwhelmingly, his constitutional interpretation happens to come out the same way as his ideology,” said Northwestern University Professor Martin Redish, a professor of law and public policy.

“It’s pretty typical” of most justices, Redish added with a sigh.

On the other side of the spectrum, Redish said, liberal justices who typically favor free speech sometimes take a different approach when it comes “to hate speech or anti-gay speech.”

“Justices do it a lot,” he said. “Whether it’s a coincidence or they’re doing it intentionally, I cannot speak to.”